The dramatic growth of prison populations in the United States during the latter half of the twentieth century, as well as the problems of over-policing and police misconduct, have been well documented and decried. But the related expansion and problems of community supervision receive far less attention. Across the nation, reform efforts have increasingly included a focus on probation, especially juvenile probation, as an actor that both jails and polices youth in the community while also trying to rehabilitate them and promote their well-being. This Article studies the juvenile probation system, with a focus on California as one important system aiming to both surveil and care for individuals. It draws together two frameworks: 1) law and policy which describe the juvenile probation system as intended, and 2) juvenile probation practices and attitudes which reveal the day-to-day translation of the system’s formal intentions. Ultimately, where a system’s approach to rehabilitation and accountability become synonymous with or too reflexively able to adopt surveillance, containment, and punishment orientations, its ability to deliver meaningful help and support through that same system is improbable. Thus, this Article discusses the need in the United States to reform, dismantle, or replace probation with youth development-focused systems and uses Los Angeles as an example of a government already doing this important work.

Cite as: Patricia Soung, Is Juvenile Probation Obsolete? Reexamining and Reimagining Youth Probation Law, Policy, and Practice, 112 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 549 (2022).

This study describes how judges in Maricopa County, Arizona responded to age and other mitigation evidence in imposing “life” versus “natural life” sentences for juvenile offenders convicted of homicide in pre-Miller cases. Maricopa County was selected for this case study because of its history of adhering to “restrictive interpretations” of various kinds of mitigation evidence and because of the characteristics of this county’s local court community. The study employed a mixed-methods design consisting of a content analysis of relevant case documents and a quantitative analysis of the findings from the qualitative analyses of legal case documents. It examined 82% of the juveniles given natural life sentences and 72% of the juveniles given a sentence of life (25-to-life) in Maricopa County. The findings of this study indicated that judges referenced age as a statutory mitigating factor in 17% of both “life” and “natural life” cases, and age as a reason for the sentences imposed in 46% of both “life” and “natural life” cases. However, the age-relevant and other mitigating reasons referenced by judges lacked statistically significant associations with the sentences that the judges imposed. The only judicial reason with a statistically significant association with the imposed sentences was “emotional impact of the crime on the victim’s family.” The implications of this and other findings for “full responsibility” and “mitigation” approaches for blaming juvenile lifers were discussed, as well as the need for future research on post-Miller sentencing and resentencing processes.

Cite as: José B. Ashford, Katherine Puzauskas & Robert J. Dormady, Judicial Responses to Age and Other Mitigating Evidence: An Exploratory Case Study of Juvenile Life Sentences in Pre-Miller Cases, 112 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 593 (2022).